The Laws of Logic Imply God's Existence

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=seer;3372707]

Nope, I argued from experience. The universe has specific parameters, laws, etc... We know that intelligence (our intelligence) can create things with precise values and parameters - there is no such evidence that non-intelligent forces could do the same.

No you are not arguing from experience, even that would be the fallacy of the 'appeal to authority.' None the less your foundation argument remains the appeal to the lack of knowledge or ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" for which you have not provided any supporting evidence to support an alternative.

Even if my argument is bad it makes no difference - you believe that God created the universe, not some natural godless force - that is either true or it is not.

Yes, it is either true or not, and yes i believe in God, but it does not justify a bad argument based on a fallacy.

[seer]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;3372726]

No you are not arguing from experience, even that would be the fallacy of the 'appeal to authority.' None the less your foundation argument remains the appeal to the lack of knowledge or ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" for which you have not provided any supporting evidence to support an alternative.

You really are off base. And "appeal to authority" has nothing to to with an argument from experience. Do you just make stuff up? So my argument depends on what we know intelligence can do - you on the other hand have nothing since you have no idea if non-intelligent forces could create a universe with precise values.

Yes, it is either true or not, and yes i believe in God, but it does not justify a bad argument based on a fallacy.

Ok, so God, not some natural force created the universe. Then any natural theory for creation would be wrong.

[ShivShakti]

First there is 0 evidence that matter/energy is eternal.

Seer, the first law of thermodynamics states energy (not matter btw) can't be created or destroyed.
This means the exact same amount of energy which makes up our physical universe is, has been, and always will be here, eternally.

Our limited understanding suggests than matter/energy in this present universe can not be destroyed - but what did matter/energy look/act like before this present condition - we have no idea.

Of course we have an idea. Einstein, in explaining the space/time continuum described a line being put out into space as eventually returning on itself. This alone tells us time is cyclical. In an eternal universe, time cycles eternally. The laws and events governing the physical universe operate in a cyclical fashion according to time, and according to Newton's (every action...) law . The present condition (the reaction, the observable catastrophic physical interaction of matter ) is the result of the preceding state (action) of the universe operating under the law of entropy. Let's call that preceding state the point in time where the universe reaches a state of critical mass (the Big Bang Crunch), and the whole process starts over again. There you have your idea of what energy and matter were doing prior to what you call the current condition - they were operating under the laws which govern them.

The 2nd law of thermodynamic leads it all to entropy, usable energy is lost. You are suggesting a kind of perpetual motion machine with oscillating universes, which is nonsense along with the completely irrational idea of infinite regression.

I'm not suggesting oscillating universes or infinite regression, but events occurring in cyclical time. The actions and reactions of energy and matter are perpetual by nature, as described above. There can never be a time when an action (event) isn't the precursor to its partner event (reaction), and perfectly so, ad infinitum. It's when we wrongly consider time to be linear that we start running into the problem of what happens pre-beginning and after endings. Adopting linear time as the premise for our universe is erroneous thinking.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=seer;3372752]

You really are off base. And "appeal to authority" has nothing to to with an argument from experience. Do you just make stuff up? So my argument depends on what we know intelligence can do - you on the other hand have nothing since you have no idea if non-intelligent forces could create a universe with precise values.

This is the problem with your argument. I am not making a statement either way in this argument as how the universe came into being ultimately, except I believe there is sufficient evidence for natural origins through science that does not require intelligence. The problem here is distinctly you are making a claim that our universe cannot come about by natural means because of the lack of knowledge, and you have absolutely no evidence that the universe is created.This is argument ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" period.

Ok, so God, not some natural force created the universe. Then any natural theory for creation would be wrong.

Again . . . I am not basing the discussion on belief, please let it pass. I am arguing from the perspective of the bad nature of the argument.

[ST Mannew]

Hello again, newb, and welcome to TWeb. I see now that you intended to ask "imagine for an instant", rather than "imagine an instant" as I supposed. Hence the confusion. You'll find on re-reading that I answered the question that was apparent from your text. Following from this, I suggested you had an issue, not with death, but rather with imagining your death, referring again to the instant in which I presuppose you will not exist.

Addressing your clarification, I do not presuppose anything so absolutely unitive as "the truth" existing. There are truths, and they exist, or at least they exist for Platonic idealists. There are truths that cannot be shown to exist, exemplified by Godel incompleteness. There are the truths of non-classical logics, in which alternative proving systems are adopted to treat propositions unrecognized by classical logics.

Now, I recognize that again, you may not have been asking if I could deny "the truth" existed, which I have just done, but rather inquiring after some specific truth. You may need to clarify yourself again. May I suggest you put a bit more thought into what you're writing. This is a written medium. We have no access to the normal visual cues that can lend understanding, so it's necessary to write clearly.

As ever, Jesse

Hello Jesse,

Thanks for the welcome. Why did you not ask for a clarification or just answer the question whereas you “I supposed” in the first place?

And "imagine for an instant” and "imagine an instant" denotes the same instant, if you think the phrases are different instants then you have confused yourself. They are one, and the act is still impossible. That is, it is a falsehood in itself.

Actually it is you who is presupposing that you won’t exist after death, remember you are the one who said it; and you are projecting.
It is beyond my capacity to see what awaits someone who as no destination after death.

I believe that the truth of our own existence is our primary and starting assumption (principle of being) of the absoluteness of truth, if anyone believes they truly exist then their priority should be in finding what other amazements arise from this thing we call truth.

If it is truth, then it can be shown to exist, if one cannot realize the truth, then the error is in them, not with the truth. Truth is truth, no matter if it is beyond “non-classical logics, alternative proving systems or unrecognized by classical logics”, if the truth cannot be shown to exist then the problem is not with the truth but with the person using these systems of thought.

And thanks for your post.

ST

[pancreasman]

If it is truth, then it can be shown to exist, if one cannot realize the truth, then the error is in them, not with the truth. Truth is truth, no matter if it is beyond “non-classical logics, alternative proving systems or unrecognized by classical logics”, if the truth cannot be shown to exist then the problem is not with the truth but with the person using these systems of thought.



ST

Just butting in here. That first statement is an assertion. I can see the possibility of absolute truth existing but not being able to be shown to be such, nor able to be grasped in completeness with the human mind. Further, like geometry and art, truth may not 'exist' separately from the human mind as a thing (or ideal) in itself.

[seer]

I'm not suggesting oscillating universes or infinite regression, but events occurring in cyclical time. The actions and reactions of energy and matter are perpetual by nature, as described above. There can never be a time when an action (event) isn't the precursor to its partner event (reaction), and perfectly so, ad infinitum. It's when we wrongly consider time to be linear that we start running into the problem of what happens pre-beginning and after endings. Adopting linear time as the premise for our universe is erroneous thinking.

It is not erroneous thinking. Again, you can not escape an infinite regression of events, it would still be a kind of perpetual motion machine, which is nonsensical. Entropy is is the end of this universe, heat death - all usable energy is lost. There is no evidence that this universe will do anything but die - that is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[shunyadragon]

It is not erroneous thinking. Again, you can not escape an infinite regression of events, it would still be a kind of perpetual motion machine, which is nonsensical. Entropy is is the end of this universe, heat death - all usable energy is lost. There is no evidence that this universe will do anything but die - that is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Scientifically incorrect energy cannot be lost. The issue would be what the nature of our physical existence is which contains our universe. Infinite regression of events is meaningless ancient Aristotilian thinking and means nothing in today's math and cosmology today as to whether there is an infinite past or not. Hint events occur in time, and they do not represent time.

[seer]

This is the problem with your argument. I am not making a statement either way in this argument as how the universe came into being ultimately, except I believe there is sufficient evidence for natural origins through science that does not require intelligence. The problem here is distinctly you are making a claim that our universe cannot come about by natural means because of the lack of knowledge, and you have absolutely no evidence that the universe is created.This is argument ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" period.

Let me try this one one more time. First this is not an argument from ignorance by definition, or an appeal to authority. It is an argument from experience (which BTW all arguments are ultimately based) and what is more likely, let me put it this way.

1. We live in a universe with very precise values and parameters.

2. We know that intelligent beings (i.e. us) can create things and conditions with precise values and parameters.

3. We have no evidence that a non-intelligent force (the one that created this universe) could create anything with precise values and parameters.

4. Therefore it is likely, or we can infer, that intelligence played a part in the creating this universe.

[seer]

Scientifically incorrect energy cannot be lost. The issue would be what the nature of our physical existence is which contains our universe. Infinite regression of events is meaningless ancient Aristotilian thinking and means nothing in today's math and cosmology today as to whether there is an infinite past or not.

Shuny, I already showed that infinite regression is impossible. If you believe otherwise go back and answer my question. Second, as far as I know the 2nd law of thermodynamics is still in effect. And one day ALL USEABLE ENERGY will be lost.

[shunyadragon]

Let me try this one one more time. First this is not an argument from ignorance by definition, or an appeal to authority. It is an argument from experience (which BTW all arguments are ultimately based) and what is more likely, let me put it this way.

Let me try this one more time. YES, it is most definitely an argument from ignorance, and also you lack the knowledge to be an authority as to what science can explain and not explain, and your bias toward your theistic claim as the only explanation further cripples your argument.

1. We live in a universe with very precise values and parameters.

True

2. We know that intelligent beings (i.e. us) can create things and conditions with precise values and parameters.

We know humans can make things from other things (not create) given conditions with precise values and parameters. We have no no evidemce of intelligent beings creating anything.

3. We have no evidence that a non-intelligent force (the one that created this universe) could create anything with precise values and parameters.

The bottom line is we have no evidence of intelligent beings creating anything much less our physical existence. We have evidence of our physical existence being dependent on the properties of energy and matter at the Quantum level, which does not have any evidence of an underlying cause,

4. Therefore it is likely, or we can infer, that intelligence played a part in the creating this universe.

No, does not logically follow because of the lack of information.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, I already showed that infinite regression is impossible. If you believe otherwise go back and answer my question. Second, as far as I know the 2nd law of thermodynamics is still in effect. And one day ALL USEABLE ENERGY will be lost.

First, contemporary math does not consider infinite regression impossible. It is a questionable philosophical conclusion based on ancient Aristotilian thinking. NO, you have not shown infinite regression is impossible, you have only claimed it is so. If you propose an infinite half life going back in time as impossible that would only apply to the set you propose in time and not to time itself.

Second, Infinite regression of events or things occur within time and do not limit infinite time itself. They have no explanitory power in considerations of 'absolute infinities.'

Third, the concept of absolute time, first proposed by Lucretius, and Isaac Newton relate to the nature of infinite time and space, not the ancient limited view of Aristotle who only proposed actual and potential infinities, which are considered no longer complete concepts, nor relevant to contemporary concepts of math and cosmology

[seer]

First, contemporary math does not consider infinite regression impossible. It is a questionable philosophical conclusion based on ancient Aristotilian thinking. NO, you have not shown infinite regression is impossible, you have only claimed it is so. If you propose an infinite half life going back in time as impossible that would only apply to the set you propose in time and not to time itself.

Shuny, numbers are abstracts, not reality. I asked you a direct question on this and you have not (as usual) given a direct answer. Once again - if you started from this universe and were to visit, one by one, each of the preceding universe could you ever reach each universe? The answer is clearly no - for no matter how may universes you reached you would still have an INFINITE number ahead. Infinite regression is nonsensical on its face.

[seer]

We know humans can make things from other things (not create) given conditions with precise values and parameters. We have no no evidemce of intelligent beings creating anything.

The bottom line is we have no evidence of intelligent beings creating anything much less our physical existence. We have evidence of our physical existence being dependent on the properties of energy and matter at the Quantum level, which does not have any evidence of an underlying cause.

Again Shuny you are begging the question. It is the universe that needs to be explained, and you have ZERO evidence that such a universe could have or was created by a non-intelligent force. The ONLY thing we know of that can create (or organize things if you don't like create) with precise values and parameters is intelligence. End of story.

[shunyadragon]

Again Shuny you are begging the question. It is the universe that needs to be explained, and you have ZERO evidence that such a universe could have or was created by a non-intelligent force.

No begging the question at all because i have never concluded that there is a satisfactory argument concerning how our physical existence came into being. We have zip, nada, negatory, zero evidence of how everything ultimately came into being.

Again . . . Can you provide any evidence for an intelligent source for our physical existence?

. . . or for that matter evidence of anything whatsoever that has ever been created?

silence . . . tick . . . tick . . . tick

The ONLY thing we know of that can create (or organize things if you don't like create) with precise values and parameters is intelligence. End of story.

No we do not have any clue nor knowledge that intelligent anything can create. Humans have only been shown to be able to make things from other things. End of story.